Why Do I Believe in the Scientfic Method?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

but since you are willing to blindly believe in something you were told is true since birth

Show me your proof for that statement or admit that you are just going by your silly blind faith .

Actually if you had proof you wouldn't have to worry about that silly "faith" concept

I don't worry about it and I do have the proof I need to maintain my confidence in my faith . So Einstein who was a scientist wrote a paper debunking quantum mechanics . I wonder how confident he was in his faith because he had no proof to prove it . That would be using the scientific method no ?

instead of questioning and testing it you tell us that faith is all that matters.

I have tested it but not using the scientific method because as far as I know there is no scientific test you can use . Do you have a test ? And I said that God requires faith ... ie Ephesians 2:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

This is just an aspect of science self-correcting. That's all.

So science cant be wrong in its assumptions until after it has been proven wrong and then its considered corrected . Do you have any numbers on how much of science has been corrected ? And can you determine how much is not corrected at present ? And do you think that there will be corrections in the future ?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Still waiting on those scientific papers that prove the bible is real, btw.

There are thousands or millions of bibles and they are real . There are thousands and maybe millions of scientific papers that are real and some of them are actually true ...but not all of them

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Show me your proof for that statement or admit that you are just going by your silly blind faith .

Meh. It's just an educated guess because you have no scientific proof of your faith being true.

I don't worry about it and I do have the proof I need to maintain my confidence in my faith . So Einstein who was a scientist wrote a paper debunking quantum mechanics . I wonder how confident he was in his faith because he had no proof to prove it . That would be using the scientific method no ?

Einstein lived over 80 years ago. Science has come a LONG way since then. Debating old science is just a logical fallacy.

I have tested it but not using the scientific method because as far as I know there is no scientific test you can use . Do you have a test ? And I said that God requires faith ... ie Ephesians 2:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Why do I need a test? Occam's Razor is good enough for me. Just disbelieve until reasonable proof is provided because that is the route with the least number of assumptions. Simple as can be.

So science cant be wrong in its assumptions until after it has been proven wrong and then its considered corrected . Do you have any numbers on how much of science has been corrected ? And can you determine how much is not corrected at present ? And do you think that there will be corrections in the future ?

No... Science CAN be wrong. It is just willing to admit it and correct itself when shown it is wrong (provided the proper proof is provided using the scientific method).

Also, don't ask ridiculous questions. You know damn well that there is no way to gauge what is incorrect about science and what will be corrected, but here is the thing. JUST because science self-corrects doesn't mean it isn't right about things it has proven.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Still waiting on those scientific papers that prove the bible is real, btw.

There are thousands or millions of bibles and they are real . There are thousands and maybe millions of scientific papers that are real and some of them are actually true ...but not all of them

There are thousands or millions of the Harry Potter books too. Are they real then?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You can have instant communication without speed with entanglement, so light can still be the fastest speed thru creation. One idea do not exclude the other.

I am pretty sure about entanglement. Do not care one way or the other about what is the fastest speed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There are thousands or millions of the Harry Potter books too. Are they real then?

although I don't own one I know a few people that do and so yes they are real books and do exist .

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Meh. It's just an educated guess because you have no scientific proof of your faith being true.

Like wise you have no proof that its not . Do you have any scientific proof that you are a conscious being ?

Einstein lived over 80 years ago. Science has come a LONG way since then. Debating old science is just a logical fallacy.

I think we were talking about the scientific method which I assume Einstein was both familiar with and utilized .But he may of been going on faith alone ...not sure .

Why do I need a test? Occam's Razor is good enough for me. Just disbelieve until reasonable proof is provided because that is the route with the least number of assumptions. Simple as can be.

I think even old Occam would have required much testing of Quantum Mechanics before eating that one . In fact I think they have looked at it from so many points trying to disprove it because of what it suggests . Spooky at a distance .

JUST because science self-corrects doesn't mean it isn't right about things it has proven.

Well there are differing schools of thoughts about questions that arise and are put into journals so some people can have a choice of answers to tell people . The "could be's " might have's and all done without using the scientific method .We can call them the Occam crowd .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Like wise you have no proof that its not . Do you have any scientific proof that you are a conscious being ?

What a silly question...

I think we were talking about the scientific method which I assume Einstein was both familiar with and utilized .But he may of been going on faith alone ...not sure .

Oh he probably did, but there is this thing in the scientific method called peer review. Peer review updates older science as new information is uncovered or new technology that allows for more precise precision is developed. This is why bringing up science from a century ago in your attack against science is a logical fallacy. Even if Einstein used the scientific method (and again I'm sure he did) that doesn't prevent his conclusions from being partially or fully wrong. It only takes peer review later down the line to show it. Once that is done we discard the old conclusions and adopt the new ones. That is why science is a better methodology of discovery than religion. It makes itself more correct over time. It isn't perfect by any means, but its better than religion.

I think even old Occam would have required much testing of Quantum Mechanics before eating that one . In fact I think they have looked at it from so many points trying to disprove it because of what it suggests . Spooky at a distance .

Exactly what are your problems with Quantum Mechanics? Do you even understand the science enough to doubt it?

Well there are differing schools of thoughts about questions that arise and are put into journals so some people can have a choice of answers to tell people . The "could be's " might have's and all done without using the scientific method .We can call them the Occam crowd .

Um... no we don't. That is literally that exact opposite of what an "Occam crowd" would be. "The "could be's " might have's and all done without using the scientific method " are all assumptions so the Occam crowd would discard every one of them. For reference:
Occam's Razor - among competing hypotheses the hypothesis with the least number of assumptions is likely the most correct.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What a silly question...

So you are saying its silly because you can scientifically prove it ? Do share .

Oh he probably did, but there is this thing in the scientific method called peer review.

There is good evidence that in some cases it might be better called pal review .

This is why bringing up science from a century ago in your attack against science is a logical fallacy.

I wasn't attacking science but showing that it alone cannot answer some questions and is questionable about some of the claims they make. ....take Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion and his banned TED talk . It was banned not because he made false claims but because the claims he made could not be refuted by the scientific peer's . Calling something a constant when it is anything but is a problem for the science community .At least in the eyes of us simpler folk who enjoy the truth .

That is why science is a better methodology of discovery than religion.

You are trying to compare two different things that don't ask the same questions nor use the same source materials . Using a screwdriver as a hammer can work but a proper tool for the job can give better results or at the least make it easier . Religious studies can also give better results over time .

Exactly what are your problems with Quantum Mechanics? Do you even understand the science enough to doubt it?

I have no problems with Quantum Mechanics and actually find it amazing .Cant say I fully understand it though .Do you ? It actually debunks materialism :>) So using Occam's rule and Quantum Mechanics are you ready to denounce materialism ?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So you are saying its silly because you can scientifically prove it ? Do share .

It's silly because I exist and am conscious therefore consciousness exists. It's really not that hard to debate. This is like asking to scientifically prove that trees exist. Just go outside and look around.

There is good evidence that in some cases it might be better called pal review .

This is an irrelevant point.

I wasn't attacking science but showing that it alone cannot answer some questions and is questionable about some of the claims they make. ....take Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion and his banned TED talk . It was banned not because he made false claims but because the claims he made could not be refuted by the scientific peer's . Calling something a constant when it is anything but is a problem for the science community .At least in the eyes of us simpler folk who enjoy the truth .

It remains to be seen what science can and cannot prove. Furthermore it is still the best methodology of discovery we have.

You are trying to compare two different things that don't ask the same questions nor use the same source materials . Using a screwdriver as a hammer can work but a proper tool for the job can give better results or at the least make it easier . Religious studies can also give better results over time .

Both try to explain the universe. Science is just better at it every way.

I have no problems with Quantum Mechanics and actually find it amazing .Cant say I fully understand it though .Do you ? It actually debunks materialism :>) So using Occam's rule and Quantum Mechanics are you ready to denounce materialism ?

You just made a statement that discounts your later statement. I have no reason to trust what you think Quantum Mechanics debunks or doesn't debunk (for the record, no it doesn't spooky stuff that happens on a Quantum level doesn't upscale to our level) because you just admitted to not understanding the science. I make a point of not trusting people who don't know what they are talking about.

Also, I don't give a # about Youtube videos.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's silly because I exist and am conscious therefore consciousness exists. It's really not that hard to debate. This is like asking to scientifically prove that trees exist. Just go outside and look around.

But my point was that the scientific method can't prove something that is so obvious to every one or should be everyone . So using your faith and not the scientific method works for the self . That is a very important place to start if and when you decide to think deeply on weather there is a God or not but like the self the scientific method seems to be a useless tool .

I have no problems with Quantum Mechanics and actually find it amazing .Cant say I fully understand it though .Do you ? It actually debunks materialism :>) So using Occam's rule and Quantum Mechanics are you ready to denounce materialism ? You just made a statement that discounts your later statement. I have no reason to trust what you think Quantum Mechanics debunks or doesn't debunk (for the record, no it doesn't spooky stuff that happens on a Quantum level doesn't upscale to our level) because you just admitted to not understanding the science. I make a point of not trusting people who don't know what they are talking about.

I don't know much about the technical parts ,the math the physics ... But when thinking on the physical aspect's or lack there of , I get it . If you wanted a kind of proof of at least the metaphysics reality of reality then that would be the best place to start to approach the subject .

In the second part part 2 the YT vid author quotes some of the giants of science who got it back when it was discovered .But they were willing to go where the scientific method would not or could not take them . So at the end of the day the scientific method although a valid tool to use is useless for none material inquiry .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t
But my point was that the scientific method can't prove something that is so obvious to every one or should be everyone . So using your faith and not the scientific method works for the self . That is a very important place to start if and when you decide to think deeply on weather there is a God or not but like the self the scientific method seems to be a useless tool .

Tell you what. If you can scientifically define consciousness then I'll use the scientific method to prove it exists. Though I believe I'll be waiting for a long time since even scientists can't thoroughly define it yet.

I don't know much about the technical parts ,the math the physics ... But when thinking on the physical aspect's or lack there of , I get it . If you wanted a kind of proof of at least the metaphysics reality of reality then that would be the best place to start to approach the subject .

Yes I know you don't get it at all. If you don't understand the technical parts then you don't understand what you are talking about. Science is complicated. If you don't understand those complications then your opinion about it is very likely flawed. If you have to use dumbed down explanations to understand it, then your opinion about it is very likely flawed. There is a reason why you have to study quite a few other science fields in order to begin researching Quantum Mechanics as a scientist, yet you think you know enough to say they are all wrong. Yeah right.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's silly because I exist and am conscious therefore consciousness exists. It's really not that hard to debate.

Tell you what. If you can scientifically define consciousness then I'll use the scientific method to prove it exists. Though I believe I'll be waiting for a long time since even scientists can't thoroughly define it yet.

Don't you think it kind of silly that the method you choose to prove that a God exists can't even prove that you exist ? Do you think that maybe the tool you chose may not be the end all be all tool for life"s questions ?

Yes I know you don't get it at all. If you don't understand the technical parts then you don't understand what you are talking about.

Then how can you be so sure you know what you are talking about when you say ." It's silly because I exist and am conscious therefore consciousness exists. It's really not that hard to debate." and don't offer any technical data from the scientific method to make your point ?

There is a reason why you have to study quite a few other science fields in order to begin researching Quantum Mechanics as a scientist, yet you think you know enough to say they are all wrong. Yeah right.

I never said science was wrong . I said they have a lot of theory's that may be wrong . In fact they (the science community) has counter theory's that are believed to be true within their own camps but have have never been proven to be true . So science practices a faith just like religion does .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Don't you think it kind of silly that the method you choose to prove that a God exists can't even prove that you exist ? Do you think that maybe the tool you chose may not be the end all be all tool for life"s questions ?

Nope. Science explains what it is capable of explaining. If it can't it leaves that question unanswered until it can answer it instead of making giant assumptions that it can't back up. That is an aspect I love about it in fact. It makes it more honest than someone saying they know because "God told them". Science doesn't need to have an answer for every imaginable question or concern to be correct about the things it does remark on. That would be a logical fallacy.

Then how can you be so sure you know what you are talking about when you say . It's silly because I exist and am conscious therefore consciousness exists. It's really not that hard to debate. and offer any technical data from the scientific method to make your point ?

How can you be so sure you are right if you can't back up what you are saying mathematically?

I never said science was wrong . I said they have a lot of theory's that may be wrong . In fact they (the science community) has counter theory's that are believed to be true within their own camps but have have never been proven to be true . So science practices a faith just like religion does .

This is wrong. Theories are accepted collections of processes in science. There are competing hypotheses and ideas that say they are right, but they aren't theories. Theories require peer review validation to be considered theories. This circles back to your ever present inability to understand the difference between the layman definition of theory and the scientific one.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How can you be so sure you are right if you can't back up what you are saying mathematically?

I have looked at the math and have confidence in my believe that God exists . What kind of math have you used to be confident that you are a conscious being ? Or what kind of mathematical proof's can you add to the scientific method to prove it ?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I have looked at the math and have confidence in my believe that God exists . What kind of math have you used to be confident that you are a conscious being ? Or what kind of mathematical proof's can you add to the scientific method to prove it ?

1) You told me several posts ago that you don't understand the math, and now suddenly you do? That's weird.
2) Where are your calculations that god exists? Post them. I'm sure we'd all like to see your super math that proves his existence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

1) You told me several posts ago that you don't understand the math, and now suddenly you do? That's weird. 2) Where are your calculations that god exists? Post them. I'm sure we'd all like to see your super math that proves his existence.

I don't know advanced math and the math I could provide is not proof that God exist any more then math you could provide that you are a conscious being . I said that the math I looked at gave me more confidence that God exists . Being confident in something is not the same as having proof . Sometimes its the small bits that tells you that someone loves you .Sometimes even the big things fail to do so .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Alright well what is this math that improves your confidence in god's existence?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It comes from a book a friend gave me years ago but is in a pdf on the web for free god-help.org... not a big read but a interesting one .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It comes from a book a friend gave me years ago but is in a pdf on the web for free god-help.org... not a big read but a interesting one .

This source is flawed. It looks at how things are currently and works backwards with its proof by saying that we cannot exist without these variables being true. While that is true for humans in particular, there is another assumption at work in that pdf. That humans are necessary or important to the universe in some way. So yes, god could exist if humans are important, but everything we know about the universe suggests that we are merely just a fluke because a bunch of variables aligned to develop us through evolution.

Let's go over the reasons why.
1) Humans can only exist and thrive on Earth. If we leave Earth and go literally anywhere else in the wide and vast universe without some sort of aid or assistance we die immediately. This brings up the question of why is the universe made for us if we can only exist comfortably in so little of it.
2) Even on Earth, Humans still aren't that awesome considering its history. Humans have only been on the planet less than 1% of the Earth's existence. Bacteria is still the resident king there.
3) This isn't just exclusive to time either. Even among the animals on the planet, insects have a beat by a VERY wide margin. Ants alone outnumbers us by a great margin.
4) If we'd just find evidence of other humanoid beings in the universe then MAYBE this analysis could work out, yet nothing.

So given these things it is unlikely this analysis is on the mark. If any of the variables didn't align and humans didn't evolve then it wouldn't matter to the universe one iota. It would still exist. Heck not even the Earth would notice the difference. It would keep on spinning around the sun.

If you cannot prove that humans are intrinsically important to the universe then there is no point in even making this analysis. This is a big reason why the scientific method is a preferable method of discovery than assuming something is true then working backwards to make data fit your conclusion. Science starts with the most basic things possible and builds from there. So science starts at the dawn of the universe (or rather as far back as we can look which is the Big Bang even if that isn't necessarily the dawn of the universe) and works its way forward on how we got to where we are.

Yes the odds of us appearing are low, but we are here so no matter what those odds may be they still happened.